Colorado Governor Signs Gun Control Legislation

ColoradoGuy

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Posts
1,170
Media
35
Likes
1,467
Points
308
Location
Denver (Colorado, United States)
Verification
View
Gender
Male
From the Washington Post:
The governor of Colorado signed bills Wednesday that put sweeping new restrictions on sales of firearms and ammunition in a state with a pioneer tradition of gun ownership and self-reliance.


The bills thrust Colorado into the national spotlight as a potential test of how far the country might be willing to go with new gun restrictions after the horror of mass killings at an Aurora movie theater and a Connecticut elementary school.
I noted that there was no sounds of the Bill of Rights being ripped apart nor was a single gun confiscated from the hands of any gun owners. I'm sure much will be written in favor and against Colorado's actions, but the point remains that legislation doesn't equate to confiscation and those who make that argument are living in a made-up world, unhampered by facts and unconcerned with truth.

The glacial pace of Congress, the national preference for fear-mongering over common sense, and the NRA's considerable influence in Washington may prevent federal legislation from ever seeing the light of day. I'm happy I live in a state with proactive legislators and and a Governor with priorities that favor the population's safety over commercial interests. Hopefully, other states will follow Colorado's lead and Congress will take notice.
 

Fuzzy_

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Posts
4,253
Media
0
Likes
1,105
Points
258
Location
Wuziland
Gender
Male
Colorado, is that you? Fuzzy barely recognized you! First pot, now this.

ColoradoGuy, you are a very lucky man to live in such a wonderful, progressive State.
:beerchug2:
 

cruztbone

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Posts
1,284
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
258
Age
70
Location
Capitola CA USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
God bless colorado and the state legislature and govenor Hickenlooper. they show courage against the cowardly, greedy NRA. i am hopeful my state of CA will do the same.
D ray morton, you need to do some reading and compare gun death statistics among the industralized nations. this is about people, but it is also about greed, not the second amendment.
 

Fuzzy_

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Posts
4,253
Media
0
Likes
1,105
Points
258
Location
Wuziland
Gender
Male
That's a great speech by Hickenlooper. We might be seeing a new player in the Federal stage.

He made some great points. Critics of background checks often claim that criminals will ignore background checks, but they don't. As Hickenlooper stated, "Criminals aren't stupid, they're not going to sign up for (gun) background checks . . .Well, no one told the criminals that, and it turns out that many criminals are stupid."

Hickenlooper said that, in 2012, background checks prevented 5,000 gun purchases out of more than 320,000 applications.

Of those blocked gun sales, Hickenlooper said:

  • 38 were individuals either accused or convicted of homicide.
  • 133 were people accused or convicted of sexual assault.
  • 600 were people accused or convicted of burglary.
  • Over 1,000 were people accused or convicted of felony assault.
  • 400 people had restraining orders against them while trying to buy a gun.
He also said, "Indeed, if you want any proof positive that criminals are not as smart as some people give them credit for, 236 individuals when they showed up to pick up their newly purchased gun, we arrested them because there were outstanding arrest warrants for them . . . I don’t see how you can argue that this isn't (of) significant value. Over 2,000 people who had violent history were stopped from buying a weapon."


Hickenlooper also recognized that fact that the nearly dozen states that have background checks had roughthly hald the national average rate of suicides.

HICKENLOOPER - a name to remember.
 

Eric_8

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Posts
3,559
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
That's a great speech by Hickenlooper. We might be seeing a new player in the Federal stage.

He made some great points. Critics of background checks often claim that criminals will ignore background checks, but they don't. As Hickenlooper stated, "Criminals aren't stupid, they're not going to sign up for (gun) background checks . . .Well, no one told the criminals that, and it turns out that many criminals are stupid."

Hickenlooper said that, in 2012, background checks prevented 5,000 gun purchases out of more than 320,000 applications.

Of those blocked gun sales, Hickenlooper said:

  • 38 were individuals either accused or convicted of homicide.
  • 133 were people accused or convicted of sexual assault.
  • 600 were people accused or convicted of burglary.
  • Over 1,000 were people accused or convicted of felony assault.
  • 400 people had restraining orders against them while trying to buy a gun.
He also said, "Indeed, if you want any proof positive that criminals are not as smart as some people give them credit for, 236 individuals when they showed up to pick up their newly purchased gun, we arrested them because there were outstanding arrest warrants for them . . . I don’t see how you can argue that this isn't (of) significant value. Over 2,000 people who had violent history were stopped from buying a weapon."


Hickenlooper also recognized that fact that the nearly dozen states that have background checks had roughthly hald the national average rate of suicides.

HICKENLOOPER - a name to remember.

Regardless of his merits, I don't see him being anything close to a player on the national stage, if you mean it in terms of the Presidency. He'll be close to 70 come 2020. In my opinion it would take some serious, and by that I mean almost impossibly good, credentials.
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,850
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It never ceases to amazing how utterly stupid liberals are concerning this issue. Totally mindless.
And it never ceases to amaze me how simple and pointless Conservatives (especially the one who I'm replying to) are concerning most issues. Totally clueless.:rolleyes:

Now, if you care to make any type or reasoned, rational response please do. The type of post you made is somewhat beneath you
 

ColoradoGuy

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Posts
1,170
Media
35
Likes
1,467
Points
308
Location
Denver (Colorado, United States)
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Regardless of his merits, I don't see him being anything close to a player on the national stage, if you mean it in terms of the Presidency. He'll be close to 70 come 2020. In my opinion it would take some serious, and by that I mean almost impossibly good, credentials.

Well, it's true that Governor Hickenlooper wasn't an actor, the head of the Screen Actors Guild, and a corporate spokesman for nearly 10 years before becoming Governor. So, yes, he's not Ronald Reagan if that's the type of 'serious' or 'impossibly good credentials' necessary for a nearly 70-year old to get elected President. [NB. If he ran in 2020, he'd actually be nearly a full year younger than Ronald Reagan was in 1980.]

However, he is a self-made businessman who led the redevelopment of Denver's lower downtown area and turned it from a derelict skid row in the early 1980s into the popular entertainment destination and energetic business district it is today. His efforts in LoDo provided the catalyst for Denver's trifecta of modern sports venues (Coors Field, the Pepsi Center, and Sports Authority Field at Mile High) and created an environment for considerable commercial development.

Because of his successes, he was elected Mayor of Denver in 2003. His straight-forward management style and genuine concern for issues people care about won him early praise. Time magazine voted him one of the five best big-city mayors in 2005. He was reelected mayor in 2007 with 87% of the vote. As Governor of Colorado -- elected by a 14% margin -- he has defied traditional party politics to address issues important to the State.

Yesterday, he signed gun control legislation no other state in the country has been able to pass. Today, he will sign legislation adding Colorado to the list of states who have passed civil union laws for same-sex relationships. (Granted, it's not as good as same-sex marriage, but the real problem lies with federal recognition and a elected national politicians who would prefer to defend the Bible instead of defending the Constitution.) As Governor, he opposed the legalization of marijuana but he recognized the legitimacy of the voters' will and didn't attempt to fight the successful referendum.

So... is Governor Hickenlooper someone to write off? I don't think so. American politics is difficult to prognosticate one week into the future, much less seven years. I would imagine he'll find a place inside a 2016 Democratic administration. Those that know him personally have dismissed the notion that he's ever expressed any interest in a national campaign, but then, he never expressed an interest in a gubernatorial run until 2010. (In fact, we tried to 'draft' him to run in 2006 and he refused.)
 

ColoradoGuy

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Posts
1,170
Media
35
Likes
1,467
Points
308
Location
Denver (Colorado, United States)
Verification
View
Gender
Male
It never ceases to amazing how utterly stupid liberals are concerning this issue. Totally mindless.

Just a few questions, rogerg, since you project a belief that you're an expert on theses matters:

  • What exactly is a "liberal"?
  • How are they "utterly stupid"?
  • What is, in your mind, the "issue"?
  • What does it mean to be "totally mindless"?
  • Please relate your comment to the original post.
  • Please explain how your post is not an example of "trolling".
Take your time... I'll wait.
 
Last edited:

h0neymustard

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Posts
2,668
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
73
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
So despite hours of arguments from thousands of residents of the state, this signed anyway. Tell me how that's not tyranny. I hope all the recalls of the legislators succeeds, because they are clearly not representing the people.
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,850
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
So despite hours of arguments from thousands of residents of the state, this signed anyway. Tell me how that's not tyranny. I hope all the recalls of the legislators succeeds, because they are clearly not representing the people.
Yes because thousands may have been against it but I'll bet there were just as many that were for it. Funny how guys like you call it tyranny when it's not something you like but are silent when it's something you favor.
 

Fuzzy_

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Posts
4,253
Media
0
Likes
1,105
Points
258
Location
Wuziland
Gender
Male

Fuzzy_

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Posts
4,253
Media
0
Likes
1,105
Points
258
Location
Wuziland
Gender
Male
So despite hours of arguments from thousands of residents of the state, this signed anyway. Tell me how that's not tyranny. I hope all the recalls of the legislators succeeds, because they are clearly not representing the people.
They aren't representing the people? 91% of the American public support universal background checks. The NRA claimed to support background checks.

How is this not representing Coloradans?
 

Eric_8

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Posts
3,559
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Well, it's true that Governor Hickenlooper wasn't an actor, the head of the Screen Actors Guild, and a corporate spokesman for nearly 10 years before becoming Governor. So, yes, he's not Ronald Reagan if that's the type of 'serious' or 'impossibly good credentials' necessary for a nearly 70-year old to get elected President. [NB. If he ran in 2020, he'd actually be nearly a full year younger than Ronald Reagan was in 1980.]

However, he is a self-made businessman who led the redevelopment of Denver's lower downtown area and turned it from a derelict skid row in the early 1980s into the popular entertainment destination and energetic business district it is today. His efforts in LoDo provided the catalyst for Denver's trifecta of modern sports venues (Coors Field, the Pepsi Center, and Sports Authority Field at Mile High) and created an environment for considerable commercial development.

Because of his successes, he was elected Mayor of Denver in 2003. His straight-forward management style and genuine concern for issues people care about won him early praise. Time magazine voted him one of the five best big-city mayors in 2005. He was reelected mayor in 2007 with 87% of the vote. As Governor of Colorado -- elected by a 14% margin -- he has defied traditional party politics to address issues important to the State.

Yesterday, he signed gun control legislation no other state in the country has been able to pass. Today, he will sign legislation adding Colorado to the list of states who have passed civil union laws for same-sex relationships. (Granted, it's not as good as same-sex marriage, but the real problem lies with federal recognition and a elected national politicians who would prefer to defend the Bible instead of defending the Constitution.) As Governor, he opposed the legalization of marijuana but he recognized the legitimacy of the voters' will and didn't attempt to fight the successful referendum.

So... is Governor Hickenlooper someone to write off? I don't think so. American politics is difficult to prognosticate one week into the future, much less seven years. I would imagine he'll find a place inside a 2016 Democratic administration. Those that know him personally have dismissed the notion that he's ever expressed any interest in a national campaign, but then, he never expressed an interest in a gubernatorial run until 2010. (In fact, we tried to 'draft' him to run in 2006 and he refused.)

I'm comfortable with my assessment, regardless of your entirely valid points. I'd say that politics has taken a far different turn from Reagan's age. For better or worse, the older white male is not exactly the most desired candidate nowadays. Combine that with the Republican desire to get away from being the party of rich old white men, it would truly surprise me if he had serious weight thrown behind him. We've become much more a "show-me society" in my opinion, one where flair or style is far more important than substance. We've also got a significant influx of minorities, which politicians need to be able to reach in order to be elected. Perhaps they'll be in the Democratic camp come 2020, which would perhaps cause me to alter my position. However, as of now, I do believe that both parties would like to find the most qualified young, non-white candidate.

I'm not trying to argue that he wouldn't deserve consideration based on his merits...I reserve that critique for our current President.

As a Bronco fan...please just call it Mile High. Something about "Sports Authority Field" just makes me a bit queasy.
 

rogerg

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Posts
613
Media
0
Likes
370
Points
148
And it never ceases to amaze me how simple and pointless Conservatives (especially the one who I'm replying to) are concerning most issues. Totally clueless.:rolleyes:

Now, if you care to make any type or reasoned, rational response please do. The type of post you made is somewhat beneath you

This is simple but then again, I dont expect liberals to get it because it takes an IQ of over 7 to grasp:

Those who commit gun crimes, will NOT obey gun laws or restrictions, nor will back ground checks keep them from getting a gun. Does the fact that Cocaine is totally illegal stop the junky from getting it? uh, no, in case the question stumped you. But then again, you're probably for legalizing cocaine anyways so its probably a bad analogy.

All increased restriction will do is place restricitions on those who OBEY the law and are defacto, not gun crime criminals. Disarming law abiding citizens makes society more dangerous and prone to these evil mass killings. take the Aurora shooting for example. There were 7 other theatres that were near the shooters home. He went to the only "Gun Free Zone" theatre to carry out the shooting. they didnt tell you that on MSNBC did they?
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,850
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
This is simple but then again, I dont expect liberals to get it because it takes an IQ of over 7 to grasp:

Those who commit gun crimes, will NOT obey gun laws or restrictions, nor will back ground checks keep them from getting a gun. Does the fact that Cocaine is totally illegal stop the junky from getting it? uh, no, in case the question stumped you. But then again, you're probably for legalizing cocaine anyways so its probably a bad analogy.

All increased restriction will do is place restricitions on those who OBEY the law and are defacto, not gun crime criminals. Disarming law abiding citizens makes society more dangerous and prone to these evil mass killings. take the Aurora shooting for example. There were 7 other theatres that were near the shooters home. He went to the only "Gun Free Zone" theatre to carry out the shooting. they didnt tell you that on MSNBC did they?

Typical of the limited thought process that a few of our newer members(mid 2012 join date) possess.
Criminals will not obey the laws so they are useless.
Well, theft is against the law yet people still steal so let's just get rid of that law
Driving while drunk is against the law but people still do it so that law has to go as well
Please do us all a favor and disappear for a few months once again:rolleyes:

I assume you must have taken the IQ test that is in my signature line.:rolleyes: